-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tests: showcase bug 7286 (tls) - v1 #2068
Conversation
This also exposes https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7287. Related to Bug https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7286
Thank you! 👍🏻 |
🙇🏽 |
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | |||
requires: | |||
min-version: 7.0.6 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good but sadly due to the json schema issue, the test won't work even on this min version..
Wondering if there should be an option to disable schema checks for tests like these..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a PR template option, or label? Like, we still want the test to be complete, and hopefully update the schema as SV highlights an issue like this, but then at least we'd still be able to check whether the tests are testing what they're supposed to, in the meanwhile.
Should then maybe this one be merged first? OISF/suricata#11845 (or at least the Schema fixing PR)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a PR template option, or label? Like, we still want the test to be complete, and hopefully update the schema as SV highlights an issue like this, but then at least we'd still be able to check whether the tests are testing what they're supposed to, in the meanwhile.
I think it'll have to be a test.yaml option as validation is run by s-v and not the CI checks.
Should then maybe this one be merged first? OISF/suricata#11845 (or at least the Schema fixing PR)
We should indeed merge the Suricata PRs and perhaps this one too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe a PR template option, or label? Like, we still want the test to be complete, and hopefully update the schema as SV highlights an issue like this, but then at least we'd still be able to check whether the tests are testing what they're supposed to, in the meanwhile.
I think it'll have to be a test.yaml option as validation is run by s-v and not the CI checks.
Should I create a ticket?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, it's trivial really and does not need to be tracked. Creating PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Would you rebase and have green CI for main7 ?
on it. |
Follow up: #2073 |
This also exposes https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7287.
Related to
Bug https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7286
To accompany OISF/suricata#11843
Expectation:
certificate
andchain
were absent fromschema.json
Ticket
If your pull request is related to a Suricata ticket, please provide
the full URL to the ticket here so this pull request can monitor
changes to the ticket status:
Redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/7286